draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12.txt Document Write-up
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd
Write-Up.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The document was originally targeting "Experimental" status. After WG last
call (and after a fist version of this write up) the authors raised the
question of whether to move it to Standard Track. Alvaro Retana (responsible
AD) asked to document deployment experience, which has been done by the
authors by adding a new section starting in revision -10 of the document.
The LISP WG chairs did also query the WG participants through the mailing
list and there was a clear support to move the document to "Standard Track",
which has been done since revision -10.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
This document propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP
control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping
system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing
mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub)
mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can
subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly
notified when changes actually take place.
Working Group Summary:
The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the
working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was
supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be
added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list
upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The
document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was
parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP
specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial
modification to improve the clarity of the document.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other
expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has
Nits". Details are available on the datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable.
I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached
appropriately. I checked the ID nits which is clean (just one warning for an
old reference) and the output for the -12 version of the document is
provided on point 11.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
As the document shepherd I have no concerns.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No broader review is required for this document (other than the usual area
reviews).
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any
IPR related to content of this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There has been clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a
whole understand and agree with it.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12.txt:
-(729): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii
characters in UTF-8 encoding
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-boucadair-lisp-pubsub-flow-examples-01
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
The document contains both normative and informative references clearly
identified.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No normative reference is in unclear state.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
There are no downward normative references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).
The document has two IANA actions:
1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by
allocating a new bit as follows:
+======+===============+==========+=============+===============+
| Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description | Reference |
| Name | | Position | | |
+======+===============+==========+=============+===============+
| I | Map-Request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit | This-Document |
+------+---------------+----------+-------------+---------------+
2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and
populated as follows:
+====+=============+========+========================+=============+
|Spec|IANA Name |Bit | Description |Reference |
|Name| |Position| | |
+====+=============+========+========================+=============+
|N |Map-Request-N|1 | Notification-Requested |This-Document|
| | | | Bit | |
+----+-------------+--------+------------------------+-------------+
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No expert review for future allocations is required.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence,
no validation and/or check has been performed.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
The document does not contain any YANG module.